Blue and green tree logo set to replace Tory torch

Conservative Home has learnt that the Conservative Party is likely to choose a tree image as its new logo. The blurred image on the right (blurred not by design but because of the way it was transmitted to me) is very similar to the oak tree image chosen by 63% of ConservativeHome readers in June. The party is holding a series of meetings during August with party workers to discuss the party's rebranding. The new blue and green tree design is likely to be well-received.

12.30pm update: 'Ash' - who submitted the four nations entry to the ConservativeHome vote - will be pleased to know that the logo will be slightly different for Wales and Scotland. Scotland, for example, will probably have a pine tree logo. Will Northern Ireland's Conservatives get something special? Or will they be forgotten again? If there are going to be lots of logo designs perhaps the taxcutting, Eurosceptic right could get a Redwood!

10.30pm update: ConservativeHome's logo exclusive was not acknowledged by tonight's London Evening Standard when it carried a story on p2 (click on image to enlarge). The LES story does conclude by quoting the wisdom of Tam Large, Graham Smith and Jack W...

I naturally thought this was a joke when I read the headline, but then in the world of Project Cameron anything is possible. Actually it is not that bad, hearts of oak etc. And I'd rather hug an oak than one of Camreron's frinds in a hoodie.

Unlike everything else dreamed up by the Cameroons, I really like the proposed logo. The one on the right is far better than the start modernist one of the left.

However... talking of new logos when the NHS is nearly bankrupt, southern Lebanon is being ethnically cleansed, and our party is blurring into nothingness, sounds like deckchairs on the Titanic to me...

One of the many things I like about the current logo is that, like the Olympic Torch, the "tory torch of freedom" symolically never goes out. A torch represents light and truth dispelling fear and banishing darkness.

Unfortunately the proposed logo doesn't carry the same connotations. Trees don't last for ever. Cutting a ring into a small area of their bark causes pretty certain death. A little bit of disease close to the main trunk may cause the whole tree to succomb to rottenness from within. In other cases ivy and similar climbing plants (are these called "creepers"?) can cover the whole tree so that it appears bright and green whilst the tree itself is slowly being strangled so that only the surface ivy remains.

Not wishing to be wholly negative, there are good things about the tree on the left. It symbolises lots of distinct separate parts (the leaves) that, by working together whilst retaining their autonomy, can make the tree whole. I suppose this could be described as a "fruit cocktail" logo that recognises the distinctiveness of each part, and its necessity to allow the whole tree to become complete? This is a rather good analogy that could well be taken on board by those who wish to see a highly-centralised CCHQ model. I also like the way the trunk has two separate parts - the left and the right. Unless both parts of the trunk are prepared to stand alongside each other in a strong, supportive and co-ordinated manner, there is nothing to draw the leaves together and they will end up becoming scattered and not fit for purpose. But, by standing alongside each other, the left and the right parts form a strong, unyielding trunk with firm roots that will stand up against gale force winds, the loose relationship between each leaf allowing the wind to pass through the tree, leaving it a little ruffled and perhaps minus a few leaves that were not truly attached to the main tree in the first place.

The image on the right has its good points too. For example, nothing is tightly in focus: all the edges of its constituent parts are blurred (for example one cannot even attempt to identify where the trunk splits into separate branches (let alone the many separate leaves that each branch holds together), merging into one another to make a coherent and clearly recognisable whole. Perhaps one could call this the "fruit smoothy" model? In other words, no one part is given undue prominence. Everything is blended together to create the whole tree, which is itself totally dependent upon one slim trunk. And, being so slim, the trunk itself must be incredibly flexible to the different directions the tree itself is being blown about in. Going rigid in any one area of the trunk means a big split opening up with catastrophic results for the tree as a whole.

I went to a meeting a while ago and this issue came up. Ive never seen such anger by local Tories at a meeting before (and we are the home of "Mr Angry"!). Cameron, dont do this. I hate the look of this tree. This is costly. The torch was a great symbol and theres no need to change it.

Im taking it that Maude was lying to us when he said that they werent spending much time on this?

Let's be clear - are you saying that the right hand tree is the current CCHQ preferred model - blur and all? And if so, do you know what on earth is the rationale behind having a blurred logo?

For myself, I will be at the East Midlands consultation on this next week - and contrary to your expectation I will not receive the logo on the right well. If we are to have a tree, the one on the left is overwhelmingly better.

I work in advertising and hear every week large amounts of bullshit regardin rebranding. In 20 years I have never seen a re brand that has made a huge difference to an orginization or even justified the huge expense involved but have seen dozens that have failed including British Airways,Cognosenti (Post Office),Corus (British Steel),Aviva (Norwich Union) etc.In politics New Labour really did change,it didn't need a rose to show it.Personally I don't give a stuff whether we have a tree or a torch, it won't make a damned bit of difference.What will make a difference is our policies and how we behave.As James Hellyer notes somebody has got their priorities wrong.

I spend a good bit of time on building brand professionally. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the overwhelming focus on environmentalism, (still very low down the public's list of factors which determine their vote) the proposed tree logo does capture the Party's choosen brand image.

You don't have to be a student of the cameron leadership to immediately link green issues and the Conservative party when you see the logo. That is the tactic and it largely works here.

The brand concern would be how deep is the environmentalism in the Party. Is it just a policy fad, unlikely to survive DC or is it more enduring. You cannot keep changing livery and logos without it contaminating your brand. If we are to have the tree then we must have it for a political generation.

We are overdrawn to the tune of £30 million and spend money on re-branding. Such husbanding of our resources inspires me to raise yet more funds for the party safe in the knowledge that these are being spent on getting us elected. Furthermore, I am now convinced that the new tree logo will enable me to convince voters that we as a party are up to the task of saving an economy legacy that has been squandered by this government. In fact I see it being a key issue on the doorstep already.

"But Mrs Public, don't you realise that we only changed our logo to align ourselves with 21st century values, whilst Labour remain a party aligned to a logo of the 20th century".

Having converted the proposed logos to the monochrome images that will likely appear on ballot papers, may I add the following?

The left hand logo looks like someone's snuffed out the flame, leaving a few bits of black smoke wafting about above a rather faded word, which after closer examination seems to be the capitalised word "CONSERVATIVE" printed somewhat unhelpfully in the sort of serif typeface that was popular in the last century.

The right hand logo looks like an atomic bomb has detonated right on top of the "Conservatives", which are now becoming increasingly blurred and faded.

Malcolm: "In politics New Labour really did change,it didn't need a rose to show it."

An interesting point this Malcolm - Labour changed its logo from the red flag to the red rose in 1986. It then lost the elections in 1987 and 1992. The change of logo was superficial and pre-dated the actual changes that the party needed to make in order to persuade the country it was fit for government. The party then re-branded itself again, by calling itself New Labour. This tends to bear out what you say - that the brand must be built on the authentic values of the party.

Both of the images have their good points, I can't really decide. I wonder if something in the middle would be better! However I don't agree with those of you who think this is pointless. The current model is very, very dated. Probably why it appeals to the rank and file; a reminder of glory years, I don't know. Either way it has to go. I hope it hasn't cost a lot of money to discuss all this but I do think it's important to do, because you can't claim to be 'modernising' and 'in touch with modern Britain' whilst maintaining a logo from twenty years ago or however long it was. It also, happily for me, reaffirms 'traditional' conservatism, which encompasses preserving the good things about Britain, rather than just 'freedom' which obviously translates for some as just free markets (and probably in the eyes of voters too); no doubt this change will be a disappointment to many but not to me.

I can't really judge the right hand logo based on the current blurred version, however one thing is certain - the torch logo had to change. It looks awful on ballot papers, not welcoming at all. All the evidence shows that the public like Cameron but are unconvinced that the rest of us have changed into an electable party. Rightly or wrongly a new logo will help change that view and make the strivers notice that we are not the same old party any more.

If anyone could point me to a single example where changing the logo of a political party had any significant impact, or identify a single floating voter who changed their allegiance because of such a change, then I could become interested in the choice of our new image. Until then, I think all the usual clichés apply: deckchairs on the Titanic, fiddling in Rome, counting angels on a pinhead, etc, etc.

Indeed Alison. Whats the green bit under the tree? Im guessing its the dead leaves, because a shadow never comes up green! The symbolism being that it can shed its old parts to grow anew? The symbolism of it can go the other way...what do the falling leaves represent in terms of the Tories? Substance? Conservatism? Labour will use the logo against us, thats a given.

Michael I can see where you are coming from but livery and logos are designed to communicate brand values and encouarge the consumer to think about those values when making a purchasing decision.

In this sense DC has put environmentalism at the heart of policy making and given it hegemony amongst the party's values. Rightly or wrongly. The proposed logo is designed to communicate those values, particularly to those who are not politicos.

Whilst new labour did adopt the rose, I wouldn't claim that that demonstrated that the party was different. If you think back to 1997, you may recall Blair used all sorts of different colours in media conference backdrops etc. All colours except red. It was ostensible symbolism for a new centre party. It worked.

The torch was a fantastic logo, in its day. Churchill, Thatcher, were brilliant, in there day. We need a logo where people, especially young people think "modern," in touch, today, as opposed to clunkly, out of date, 1980's. Personally I dont think it matters which of the two gets adopted. Anyway if its not that big a deal if the logo is changed or not why are local associations so concerned? Labour realised you can "market" your brand, this is simply the conservative party doing the same.

Actually - thinking back to the original CH competition - what happened to my £50,000 consultancy fee?

At the very least, the competition here should have shaved something off the artwork charges by Whoever & Co. Perhaps CCHQ would like to "share the proceeds of saving" with some hard-working CH readers?

"because you can't claim to be 'modernising' and 'in touch with modern Britain' whilst maintaining a logo from twenty years ago or however long it was."

"It also, happily for me, reaffirms 'traditional' conservatism, which encompasses preserving the good things about Britain"

"We need a logo where people, especially young people think "modern," in touch, today, as opposed to clunkly, out of date, 1980's."

That's the sort of argument used by Lefties who want to remove the Union Jack and other national symbols. The fact that something is old doesn't mean it has to be replaced.

Are people really put off of voting Tory by the fact that we have a torch as our symbol?

If I had to choose between the trees I'd go for the one on the left as it has more blue in it.
You seem to have contradicted yourself! You say we can't preserve the logo but then you point out (correctly) that conservatism is about conserving good things.

So this fantastic waste of money and executive time is to show the Tory committment to environmental issues. What? Like wind turbines which are so useless that if every wind turbine in the world were sited in Britain they could only supply 25% of the UK's needs. Like examining the wrong glacier? Like bicycling to work with a following car. Phooey ! It's all a Cameron pose. The man's a phoney

Why don't they fget on with things that matter? They're totally silent on these.

I'm all for rebranding and a new logo - after all the Conservative brand has been a damaged one, but can't help worrying that a tree logo would confirm in the minds of voters that we are the party of the countryside, at a time when we want to re-establish a Conservative presence in urban Britain.

Maybe substance is ultimately more important than branding. But it's interesting to see that there have so far been only 9 posts on the Lansley Hospital Announcement thread this morning and 39 (excluding this) about the New Logo. Any guesses by the end of the day - 200?

"A fundamental problem here is that the logo on the right is, in fact, the same as the Barratt Homes logo"

As Dave has indicated he wants to cover the countryside in houses, to create cheap housing for all the immigrants he is welcoming in, then a Barratt Homes logo seems entirely appropriate. Chance of a new donor perhaps?? (If Bernie Eccleston is not available).

"I'm amazed also by the seriousness certain people seem to take this subject when it really doesn't matter at all."

I'm amazed 'William' hasn't found a way to blame the delayed withdrawal from the EPP-ED for the new logo. Perhaps if the new logo were to be decided by a postal ballot, overseen by a certain K. Clarke of Rushcliffe, he would be able to get sufficiently excited to delight us all with another conspiracy theory.

Looking forward to seeing your comments over at the Lansley/Health thread - I have done my best to get some debate going there this morning, but can only assume that almost everyone has been stunned into silence by the evident truth & good sense of my posts....

I am not convinced by both logo's with the tree. Both are slightly oldfashioned in it's design. However, ik do support replacing the torch (which I always connected with the idea of a fight) with a tree. A tree is rooted (principled), gives shade to whoever needs it (social justice), articulates the importance of nature (stewardship) and gives sanctuary to manny different birds (an open party).

And it resembles the logo of the French UMP, which is a member of the EPP party. A hint to a future direction of the conservative party? I'm just kidding. For all those who hate rebranding. I think it is fine. If you want to send a message to people that the party has changed you should also change your communications. In this visually driven society of ours logo's are more important than you think. Especially for younger generations. Ofcourse it is not as important as policy but if you want to succeed you also need to get the small things right.

mill 1349 "the torch which I always connected with the idea of a fight" Too right. We've got a fight on our hands when the chickens come home to roost to get rid of NuLab and its allies LibDem and its fellow-travellers in the Cameroons.

Of course changing the logo isn't suddenly going to catapult us in to a fifteen per cent lead over Labour, but it's the subliminal message that would hopefully get through to everyone, over the next couple of years.

Whether this message is 'we're a bunch of idiots more concerned with PR than governing the country'; or 'we're a twenty-first century party that has a friendly face and is "down with" the concerns of the British electorate today' might depend on which side of Cameron you sit on the political spectrum.

I am sure no one in CCHQ has even thought about it being reproduced in black and white, as it will in most leaflets Associations produce and on ballot papers of course. As noted it's not an original concept - Barratt, Portman Buidling Society etc. - I wonder whether we'll have another font as well which no one can use without buying a license?

Of course nobody at CCO cares whether it can be reproduced in black and white or on a Risograph - they only ever order print 'from a little man we know' in full colour.

Riso's can print green - but it is nothing like the green displayed in the sample above.

Typefaces that are only available on payment of a substantial licence fee are so much more fashionable than those common typefaces that real people use and, of course,it doesn't matter that they become 'dated' within a few months as it means the design gurus have a perfect excuse for an update and new fee!

Final moan: I've just spent an hour trying to design a newsletter heading with the tree logo. I admit I'm no great artist but whatever I try looks lopsided - others have better luck?

La Fontaine/Aesop compared the oak and the reed in their fables; the oak was blown over by the gale, whereas the reed "bending to the force of the wind, soon stood upright again when the storm had passed over".

The fundamental problem in my view is that it isn't a logo at all. If you remove the word Conservative it is rendered meaningless. The current Party Torch does not need the word Conservative becuase it is a strong visual device. If you think of famous brand logos like Little Chef, London Underground, etc the logo has enough visual identity for it to be immediately recognisable, as is the Labour rose and the Lib Dem pigeon. Take away the word Conservative and you are left with a green tree that could be any old piece of clipart. They should modernise the Torch and remove the bizarre Communist sleeve added in a moment of madness.

It is amusing to see peoples reaction to the dumping of the 'very Tory' torch logo. You should be aware that it was Labour, that infact used a torch as part of its semi official logo until the 1970's. A symbol is just that, and I don't believe that ditching the logo will harm the party in the slightest.

First of all, I am not a natural Tory supporter but felt the need to comment. I agree that this logo change really is an un-necessary alteration. Take away the word "Conservatives", and as has been said, you are left with a fairly vacant tree.

The Oak Tree has been used by so many other organisations that to consider it distinctive enough for a national political party suggests those who paid the money to allow this change have no idea about what goes on beyond their office walls.

I understand the "Lib Dem pigeon", by the way, is supposed to be "a golden bird of freedom". Whatever the merry heavens that may mean.... =)

John G - yes, up to 1981 (perhaps '82) the logo was a quarter of the Union Flag, turned 45 degrees so it resembled an upward pointing arrow. I have a copy of it in my papers / archieves. I will try and find it and scan it onto my blog.

I have to give a big up to Andrew Kennedy that guy had me in stitches here! ..well done!, On my opinion you can have any logo you like that blows your frock up for all I care, but the only trouble is the 'tree' can be read in so many different ways and Andrew captured it brillantly for me.

I remember the old logo as described by Andrew K - it carried on for longer in Scotland in the 80s (so this stuff about different logos in different parts of the Union is hardly current!). I remember spending hours sketching the torch, sighing to myself that we in Scotland had to continue with the dull old quarter-union-flag thing while down South you were all thrusting and Olympian. Plus ca change! National YCs had a dreadful lion thing, and Scottish YCs had a stylised map of Scotland with a central bit made up of a distorted quarter-union-flag thing (all 6 of us).

The 80s torch was also quite different to the "humanised" version we have now (with the hand) which always looked a bit, um, quaintly totalitarian to me.

I understand the "Lib Dem pigeon", by the way, is supposed to be "a golden bird of freedom". Whatever the merry heavens that may mean
As I understand it it was supposed originally to be a Pheonix rising, actually they changed both the colour (a pale yellow) and the bird a few years ago in recognition of the fact that it actually looked more like a pigeon crashing into a pool of vomit. It's now a more orangey yellow than it had been.

I agree with the posters above who think that re-branding is a waste of money, but on the other hand I have always loathed the 'insurance' torch logo.

I think that to ask us to chose between the two tree logos, is not appropriate when one of them looks as if it enveloped in a sea mist! I think the colours of the logo on the right MAY be much more attractive, but we would need to see it as it is meant to be seen! The logo on the left is perfectly respectable, but just a little dull.

I think that to ask us to chose between the two tree logos, is not appropriate when one of them looks as if it enveloped in a sea mist!
Obviously it isn't as intended in that for some reason it has been blurred, probably someone resampled and resized it for sending and then didn't check it had come out OK - if it was a Valley Mist surely that might be quite appropriate - Ancient Woodland in the mist squirrels jumping from branch to branch right across England and maybe a Blacksmith shoeing a horse.

As a 20 something northern tory the torch has only negative connatations to me of the political conflicts of the 1980s. Even I, an arch Thatcherite associate it with the past.

Whilst Maggie was fantastic, the simple reality is that there will be no real recovery in the north until people no longer associate us with the 1980s.

Further, when I mention to people of my age that I am a Tory, they start to treat me differently. Their perception is that I must be Victorian in outlook, intolerant, socially conservative and generally disaproving of anything modern. The new logo would send out a powerful message that the Tory Party of the 1980s has passed into history and that we are now the Tory Party of the naughties. That's how our party has always succeeded, through continual change. Did Churchill stand around after his defeat in 1945 and offer the same in the 1951 election, no he adapted, dumped laisez-faire policies and adopted the emerging social model.
The world didn't stop in 1990, it's about time the Tory Party realised that and started acting like a Party of the 21st Century.
Bring on the new logo I say!

Just what the party needs, a nice big arguement about a silly symbol. So while the rest of the county is worrying about crime, failing schools and immigration, the Tory Party will be self obsessing again. What a great way to get us back into power!

There are more important things in the world than this. Maybe if as much energy was put into getting involved in our local communities as was put into obsessing about something as silly as this, the Tory Party might actually start connecting with real people again! Oh dear ...

"Just what the party needs, a nice big arguement about a silly symbol. So while the rest of the county is worrying about crime, failing schools and immigration, the Tory Party will be self obsessing again. What a great way to get us back into power!"

"Just what the party needs, a nice big arguement about a silly symbol"

Its important. Its costing money, money that otherwise could be used campaigning. This logo will be on all our stationary. Its very visible. Has there been any consultation with Associations? Apparently there are chats with Association Officers...still nothing. I suspect theres been little talking to Associations because were in the Recess. Of course it could just be blatant idleness, which suprizes me not one bit.

May I suggest a more appropriate symbol; the balsa tree. Fast-growing, appears from nowhere and shoots up to an impressive height in a very short space of time. Unique character; it can readily be made into any semblance you want and is so lightweight it blows about all over the place. However the tree rots rapidly from the core and becomes useless to anyone. Dies off quickly.

Drew @ 01:18 "Just what the party needs, a nice big arguement about a silly symbol. So while the rest of the county is worrying about crime, failing schools and immigration, the Tory Party will be self obsessing again.What a great way to get us back into power!"

Drew that is the point that so many of us are making. That the party is becoming vacuous just as the country is sick of it. Even Blair has noticed that meaningless statements are no longer accepted and he it seems has adopted some straight talking late in his premiership.

Incidently when have you heard the party talking seriously about crime, immigration and failing schools lately?

For the record I agree we should dump the torch. I just don't think hanging our image on environmentalism will win us that many votes.

Really, do we think changing our logo will win us more votes, transform perceptions? How about a patriotic symbol? British lion? Britannia?

Corporate rebranding can have a big impact - but this is a political party. The red flag had to go for its association beyond the labour party. The tourch suits us very well, it holds no negative association on its own. Whatever people believe about the party does not revolve around a logo.